From: "Marko Beljac" <beljac-AT-optushome.com.au>
Subject: BHA: Re: RE: Re: RE: Epistemological relativism
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 02:58:16 +1100


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.



  .


        The particular example of Newton and Einstein is perhaps unfortunate since, as you say, one can derive much of classical mechanics from QM. Nonetheless, Newton's theory was incomplete and, insofar as it stated universal laws without appropriate qualification for extreme cases (in terms of speed, mass, or energy), it was wrong because the laws do not apply under such conditions. However, this is all a diversion from the issue.

        The history of science is replete with examples in which theories were totally discarded in favor of new theories. Kuhn, Harre, and others have written on this. Well-rehearsed examples include the Ptolemaic theory of planetary motion, phlogiston, and spontaneous generation. There's also a literature questioning the so-called scientific method. On one hand, studies of science (including Kuhn, but particularly people like Latour) shows convincingly that science involves a whole lot more that the scientific method and that many important scientific discoveries do not fit the model of the scientific method. On the other, by what virtues does the scientific method produce legitimate knowledge rather than simply provide a template that keeps people busy?

        Nonetheless, all this is besides the point. Even if science progressed linearly, with no paradigm shifts or revisions, that still would not be grounds for claiming that the reality of science's object depends in any way on the correctness of science. You might want to look at Richard Bernstein's Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Although I have severe criticism of many aspects of the book, Bernstein's discussion of the Cartesian anxiety is right on target. By this he means that element of Western culture that cannot accept the limits of human knowledge or its fallibility.



        Mathematics is a special case in that in is not the study of something external to itself. I believe Husserl had a name for such sciences. Nonetheless, mathematics most certainly is socially constructed. One has simply to look at mathematical programming or probability to see that certain practical concerns outside mathematics motivated its development in certain directions. Von Neumann, Nash, and that whole group at Princeton during the forties got their "juice" from the war effort and defense funding. Some of the most famous mathematical problems have names that make quaint references to historically specific, socially constructed practices ("the traveling salesman problem," game theory, Buffon's (did I spell that right?) needle problem, etc.).

        First of all Mathematics is the study of things which are external to themselves, ie I would argue in favour of a platonic realist conception of mathematics. The very fact that the laws of physics are mathematical suggests this. Whatever motivates Mathematicians is neither here nor there. The knoweledge which they give is real and correct. I could care less what motivated a mathematician in his choice of topic, thats irrelevant to the result.

        Beyond this we can look at mathematical axioms and their fundamental  elements. Consider number theory, for instance. It's been a long time since I studied it, so I have a hard time recalling specific details, but it definitely builds from smaller, discrete units to larger ones.

        No arthimetic is non algorthmic.

         The undefined terms and basic elements, as well as the logical structure based on them, bear an uncanny resemblance to the atomism and individualism so prevalent in Western, liberal thought. In principle, there is no reason why the undefined terms and fundamental elements of an axiomatic system could not be relations, networks, or processes that are logically prior to individuals. Do you suppose the fact that number theory build its logic the other way is accidental? Do you think that all mathematical concepts can be expressed equally and have the same meaning in all languages?

        I think this stretches things a bit. First of all to assert that the logical structure of mathematics, (recall at any rate that mathematics is ultimately non algorthmic) has absolutely nothing to do with "western, liberal thought"! This is silly and I think bares out my position. A "realist" in no way could accept these assertions. At any rate I dont see how "relations" or "networks" are logically prior to individuals. To have a "relationship" or a "network" is to presuppose individuals. What is a social relationship if not a relationship between individuals? What is a romantic relationship but a relationship between two individuals? If we take seriously what you say then a romantic relationship, being logically prior to individuals, constructs the individuals in the relationship.


        I don't know what you mean by human nature or, for that matter, by "human." Are you positing a constant human nature for all humans starting 1,000,000, 100,000, 10,000, 1,000, 100, or 10 years ago?

        Yes I am positing a human nature since our evolution in Africa. Social evolution would be a part of that nature. This is a pretty uncontroversial claim.
        I am not making an assertion of what exactly is human nature, our scientific knoweledge is too limited for that. I am simply asserting that we do have a nature that is space, time and culturally invariant. It seems to that you reject that there can be any such human nature, that humans are "socially constructed".

        
        Are you assuming human nature is a characteristic of individual humans rather than of humanity as a whole?

        Yes, human nature is a characterstic of individual humans.

        What specifically would count as human nature? There's so much variability among humans and human societies that we'd have to discard most characteristics to find that essential kernel that you're calling human nature.

        No, I see pretty much a great deal of variety amongst dogs. So what? The variability amongst human societies that you assert is real, but not as large or profound as you make out. The fact that there are so many natural languages does not change the fact that all languages are essentially the same, that there is just one language, universal grammar. The diversity, seemingly significant, has obscured this fact but no longer. Same goes for societies.

         Without defining this kernel more clearly it's impossible to evaluate your claim since your claim is a mixture of examples and bold assertions. If you're saying human nature includes such generalities as (1) people communicate with each other, (2) they transform the material world in order to survive, and (3) they only exist in societies, I'll grant you there's such a thing as human nature. However, I don't think that takes us very far. If I understand correctly what you're saying, you believe that social things like your bank account can be explained, ultimately, by quantum mechanics. Let's not use your bank account as an example, since that's your private information. Let's take something related but more public. Please outline an explanation for the "dot com" crash, as well as the relative development of computer-related firms in Silicon Valley versus Boston's Route 128 in terms of the quantum mechanics that underpins biological nature?

        The underlying laws of physics enable us to exercise our free will. How that is so is a question for science. Science has gotten the answer yet, but that does not mean that this will require a supernatural explanation.

        Note that humans are not the only organism's to have societies so if we assert that there exists some unnatural form of existience, "social kinds", are termite societies a part of this unnatural domain? If not, why not?

         Of course everything in the world is part of the world, so nothing is outside nature. The fact that people live in societies is not "unnatural."

        My point precisely.

        The point is that human societies vary and have their own histories and geographies. The point is also that human societies have their own causal powers and dynamic properties. Capitalist societies have business cycles, feudal societies do not. Attitudes and behaviors regarding sex in nineteenth century South Sea Islands were different from those in Victorian England. The largest buildings at the centers of human settlements have been pyramids, coliseums, churches, and World Trade Centers. If everything can be reduced to biological nature, how would you explain such variations?

        How is that we live in a Capitalist society and not a feudal one? The evolution from feudalism to capitalism occured because of an inherent feature of feudalism. So capitalism will evolve into what? You should be able to tell me given that Capitalism has its own casual powers, and perhaps suggest a time frame. Human socities have the histories and structures which we choose to give them, and our choice must be constrained by our biological nature's interface with the enviornment. Other than that we can do as we like becuase it is in our nature to so act. We can build World Trade Centers, but not in the clouds. Why cant we simply socially construct a city in the clouds? One might respond that there is the small problem of gravity but of course Newton's law is just a social construction. It could be wrong.

        Let's test this. I believe viruses cause disease by taking over certain cellular functions, but I recognize that this may be wrong or that another explanation may be equally legitimate. Does this mean that viruses must not be real or that they really do not cause disease this way? At the very least it would seem you'd have to concede that I have the right to claim viruses may really cause disease as described. In your opinion, what would one need to go beyond this and assert legitimately that viruses probably cause disease by taking over cell functions or just that viruses cause disease by taking over cell functions? I don't see how the truth or falsity of these assertions would be affected by me changing my tune and saying I'm right ("I'm always right, and I never lie" -- Firesign Theater) or that only this explanation could possibly be correct.

        I believe Osama Bin Laden has been sending mini fighters to overtake certain celluar fuctions thus causing disease..."this explanation could possiblly be correct". Is it? Why not?

            Marsh Feldman

HTML VERSION:

. 

 

 

The particular example of Newton and Einstein is perhaps unfortunate since, as you say, one can derive much of classical mechanics from QM. Nonetheless, Newton's theory was incomplete and, insofar as it stated universal laws without appropriate qualification for extreme cases (in terms of speed, mass, or energy), it was wrong because the laws do not apply under such conditions. However, this is all a diversion from the issue.

 

The history of science is replete with examples in which theories were totally discarded in favor of new theories. Kuhn, Harre, and others have written on this. Well-rehearsed examples include the Ptolemaic theory of planetary motion, phlogiston, and spontaneous generation. There's also a literature questioning the so-called scientific method. On one hand, studies of science (including Kuhn, but particularly people like Latour) shows convincingly that science involves a whole lot more that the scientific method and that many important scientific discoveries do not fit the model of the scientific method. On the other, by what virtues does the scientific method produce legitimate knowledge rather than simply provide a template that keeps people busy?

 

Nonetheless, all this is besides the point. Even if science progressed linearly, with no paradigm shifts or revisions, that still would not be grounds for claiming that the reality of science's object depends in any way on the correctness of science. You might want to look at Richard Bernstein's Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Although I have severe criticism of many aspects of the book, Bernstein's discussion of the Cartesian anxiety is right on target. By this he means that element of Western culture that cannot accept the limits of human knowledge or its fallibility.

 

 

 

Mathematics is a special case in that in is not the study of something external to itself. I believe Husserl had a name for such sciences. Nonetheless, mathematics most certainly is socially constructed. One has simply to look at mathematical programming or probability to see that certain practical concerns outside mathematics motivated its development in certain directions. Von Neumann, Nash, and that whole group at Princeton during the forties got their "juice" from the war effort and defense funding. Some of the most famous mathematical problems have names that make quaint references to historically specific, socially constructed practices ("the traveling salesman problem," game theory, Buffon's (did I spell that right?) needle problem, etc.).

 

First of all Mathematics is the study of things which are external to themselves, ie I would argue in favour of a platonic realist conception of mathematics. The very fact that the laws of physics are mathematical suggests this. Whatever motivates Mathematicians is neither here nor there. The knoweledge which they give is real and correct. I could care less what motivated a mathematician in his choice of topic, thats irrelevant to the result.

 

Beyond this we can look at mathematical axioms and their fundamental  elements. Consider number theory, for instance. It's been a long time since I studied it, so I have a hard time recalling specific details, but it definitely builds from smaller, discrete units to larger ones.

 

No arthimetic is non algorthmic.

 

 The undefined terms and basic elements, as well as the logical structure based on them, bear an uncanny resemblance to the atomism and individualism so prevalent in Western, liberal thought. In principle, there is no reason why the undefined terms and fundamental elements of an axiomatic system could not be relations, networks, or processes that are logically prior to individuals. Do you suppose the fact that number theory build its logic the other way is accidental? Do you think that all mathematical concepts can be expressed equally and have the same meaning in all languages?

 

I think this stretches things a bit. First of all to assert that the logical structure of mathematics, (recall at any rate that mathematics is ultimately non algorthmic) has absolutely nothing to do with "western, liberal thought"! This is silly and I think bares out my position. A "realist" in no way could accept these assertions. At any rate I dont see how "relations" or "networks" are logically prior to individuals. To have a "relationship" or a "network" is to presuppose individuals. What is a social relationship if not a relationship between individuals? What is a romantic relationship but a relationship between two individuals? If we take seriously what you say then a romantic relationship, being logically prior to individuals, constructs the individuals in the relationship.

 

 

I don't know what you mean by human nature or, for that matter, by "human." Are you positing a constant human nature for all humans starting 1,000,000, 100,000, 10,000, 1,000, 100, or 10 years ago?

 

Yes I am positing a human nature since our evolution in Africa. Social evolution would be a part of that nature. This is a pretty uncontroversial claim.

I am not making an assertion of what exactly is human nature, our scientific knoweledge is too limited for that. I am simply asserting that we do have a nature that is space, time and culturally invariant. It seems to that you reject that there can be any such human nature, that humans are "socially constructed".

 

 

Are you assuming human nature is a characteristic of individual humans rather than of humanity as a whole?

 

Yes, human nature is a characterstic of individual humans.

 

What specifically would count as human nature? There's so much variability among humans and human societies that we'd have to discard most characteristics to find that essential kernel that you're calling human nature.

 

No, I see pretty much a great deal of variety amongst dogs. So what? The variability amongst human societies that you assert is real, but not as large or profound as you make out. The fact that there are so many natural languages does not change the fact that all languages are essentially the same, that there is just one language, universal grammar. The diversity, seemingly significant, has obscured this fact but no longer. Same goes for societies.

 

 Without defining this kernel more clearly it's impossible to evaluate your claim since your claim is a mixture of examples and bold assertions. If you're saying human nature includes such generalities as (1) people communicate with each other, (2) they transform the material world in order to survive, and (3) they only exist in societies, I'll grant you there's such a thing as human nature. However, I don't think that takes us very far. If I understand correctly what you're saying, you believe that social things like your bank account can be explained, ultimately, by quantum mechanics. Let's not use your bank account as an example, since that's your private information. Let's take something related but more public. Please outline an explanation for the "dot com" crash, as well as the relative development of computer-related firms in Silicon Valley versus Boston's Route 128 in terms of the quantum mechanics that underpins biological nature?

 

The underlying laws of physics enable us to exercise our free will. How that is so is a question for science. Science has gotten the answer yet, but that does not mean that this will require a supernatural explanation.

 

Note that humans are not the only organism's to have societies so if we assert that there exists some unnatural form of existience, "social kinds", are termite societies a part of this unnatural domain? If not, why not? 

 

 Of course everything in the world is part of the world, so nothing is outside nature. The fact that people live in societies is not "unnatural."

 

My point precisely.

 

The point is that human societies vary and have their own histories and geographies. The point is also that human societies have their own causal powers and dynamic properties. Capitalist societies have business cycles, feudal societies do not. Attitudes and behaviors regarding sex in nineteenth century South Sea Islands were different from those in Victorian England. The largest buildings at the centers of human settlements have been pyramids, coliseums, churches, and World Trade Centers. If everything can be reduced to biological nature, how would you explain such variations?

 

How is that we live in a Capitalist society and not a feudal one? The evolution from feudalism to capitalism occured because of an inherent feature of feudalism. So capitalism will evolve into what? You should be able to tell me given that Capitalism has its own casual powers, and perhaps suggest a time frame. Human socities have the histories and structures which we choose to give them, and our choice must be constrained by our biological nature's interface with the enviornment. Other than that we can do as we like becuase it is in our nature to so act. We can build World Trade Centers, but not in the clouds. Why cant we simply socially construct a city in the clouds? One might respond that there is the small problem of gravity but of course Newton's law is just a social construction. It could be wrong. 

 

Let's test this. I believe viruses cause disease by taking over certain cellular functions, but I recognize that this may be wrong or that another explanation may be equally legitimate. Does this mean that viruses must not be real or that they really do not cause disease this way? At the very least it would seem you'd have to concede that I have the right to claim viruses may really cause disease as described. In your opinion, what would one need to go beyond this and assert legitimately that viruses probably cause disease by taking over cell functions or just that viruses cause disease by taking over cell functions? I don't see how the truth or falsity of these assertions would be affected by me changing my tune and saying I'm right ("I'm always right, and I never lie" -- Firesign Theater) or that only this explanation could possibly be correct.

 

I believe Osama Bin Laden has been sending mini fighters to overtake certain celluar fuctions thus causing disease..."this explanation could possiblly be correct". Is it? Why not?

 

    Marsh Feldman